Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare the safety profile (destructive, non-idempotent, open-world). The description goes well beyond them by disclosing delivery channels (chat widget vs. email), the 15-minute unseen-reply email fallback, and the preview-without-confirm behavior — exactly the kind of operational context an agent needs before sending a customer-facing message.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by channel behavior and the internal-note exclusion. No filler; every clause carries usable information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the delivery behavior, the dry-run/confirm protocol, and the scope boundary, and the annotations cover safety. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so every parameter (body, confirm, articles, requestId, conversationId) is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces confirm's dry-run semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (send/reply) and resource (a teammate reply to the customer in a conversation), and explicitly distinguishes the action from its nearest sibling concept with 'not an internal note' (add_note). An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear when-to-use context by contrasting a customer-facing reply against an internal note, and explains the confirm gating flow ('Without confirm it shows the recipient and channel'). It stops short of naming the sibling tool add_note explicitly or listing other exclusions, but the selection guidance is strong.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.